Machine guns have been very tightly regulated since 1934...

[Onmilo]

The Barrow and Dillinger gangs became so adept at robbing National Guard Armories the facilities had to be moved to more rural and hardened facilities to protect weapons from thieves.
Gun Bans have NEVER stopped crime. They have only opened the door to Tyranny and absolute control.

 

[klyph]

Are you saying that there were 50 years of no machine gun crime at all, or 50 years of no legally owned machine gun crime?

 

[Carl N. Brown]

There was little crime use of registered machineguns 1934 to 1986.

The Hughes Amendment froze the number of legal machineguns by closing the NFA registry to new or imported machineguns.

The antigunners' answer to the fact that legal registered guns were not a crime problem was to freeze the NFA registry to machineguns 19 May 1986.

If allowed to put semi-auto rifles under the NFA, expect them to do the same.

Learn from history. Reasonable regulation to prohibitionist mentalities is prohibition.

 

[9MMare]

Full-auto just isn't suited for most crimes. It's as simple as that.

Ok. But then I hate to point out the obvious....it certainly is suited to 'other motives'.

This is has been a really interesting thread. Didnt realize how/why machine guns were taken off the streets.

Before my time

 

[barnbwt]

Barnbwt, the gangsters didn't stop USING full autos, they just couldn't walk into a store and BUY them anymore.

I was under the impression MGs made up a tiny fraction of guns used in crimes, before, and fewer after (since those guns became more valuable to sell, rather than use). The only difference was MGs make for much more high-profile headlines.

Ok. But then I hate to point out the obvious....it certainly is suited to 'other motives'.

Full Auto is (correct me if I'm wrong here NFA-owners and FA-trained military guys) mostly useful for suppressing and indirect fire. Even low power rounds like 223 and pistol rounds have enough recoil to make aiming difficult (not reflected accurately in video games ), and the very fast rate of fire of all these guns means a significant portion of ammo will either miss its intended target or be used excessively on its target.

223 doesn't really have the range (or capacity in 30rnds) to be useful for indirect (barrage) fire. It is incredibly scary however, which is why supressing fire keeps peoples' heads down, and why civilians are so terrified of it. In reality, it is probably less effective than aimed semi-auto fire, especially in untrained hands, and is frankly no more dangerous (in trained hands) than straight SA. The St. Valentines Day Massacre would not have ended any differently had SA's, or even revolvers and bolt actions been used instead of Thompsons.

Civilians wouldn't be nearly as frightened by full-auto if we didn't have audio recorders. If everyone's only experience with the feature was actual experience, it would be regarded as "fun."

TCB

 

[VA27]

I was under the impression MGs made up a tiny fraction of guns used in crimes, before, and fewer after (since those guns became more valuable to sell, rather than use). The only difference was MGs make for much more high-profile headlines.

Back then you could walk into a gun shop or even a decently stocked hardware store, plunk down your cash and walk out with a Thompson or a Colt Monitor (the civilian version of the BAR). No forms to fill out, no questions asked.

The ban wasn't as much about keeping F/A guns out of the hands of the criminal element as it was about giving the general public the PERCEPTION that something was being done.

In that respect it worked in the same way as the 1994 A/W ban and just about as well.

In general, politics is not about DOING something to solve a problem as much as it is giving the IMPRESSION that something is being done.

 

[Baba Louie]

In general, politics is not about DOING something to solve a problem as much as it is giving the IMPRESSION that something is being done.

Such as Prohibition. OR the Bonus March fiasco brought about by the Depression, itself brought about & extended by govt interference or control of economics? You mean like that?

Homer Cummings, FDR's Attorney General. Gold hoarding made illegal. NFA.

Control. It's all good.

Freedom & Liberty. Risky uncertainty and that's bad for controllers who need to impress voters and campaign contributors they're DOING something.

 

[ExTank]

Many gun control activists who know a thing or two point to the N.F.A. as successfull gun control.

They fail to grasp that since its passage, and up to 1986's Firearm Owner's Protection Act, no violent crime shad been committed with legally owned N.F.A. firearms.

Yet that didn't keep this piece of scum from Midnight Riding an attachment to the F.O.P.A.

Which means that to gun-grabbers, even after successful gun control has been enacted and stood on its own record for 52 years, there's no such thing as "too much gun control."

The two violent crimes committed with legally owned machineguns came in 1988 and 1992, after the passage of the F.O.P.A. with it highly questionable (procedurally) Hughes Amendment.

To the antis, "compromise" means, "Shut up and do what you're told, you uppity, stupid peasant."

Never compromise with the antis.

On anything.

Don't surrender a single round of magazine capacity.

Don't surrender a single round of rate-of-fire.

Don't surrender a single material (plastics/plymenrs) used in the manufacture or construction of firearms.

Don't surrender a single cosmetic feature of those evil "assault weapons."

Don't surrender a single, solitary thing related to firearms to them, as they will cry, "Victory!" and come back again next year, and the year after that, and again and again until they get what they truly want: the repeal of the Second Amendment and the total disarmament of the American civilian population.

 

[yokel]

The principal intent of the Second Amendment was that people be able to defend themselves from invasion and the possibility of a government gone horribly wrong.

It'd be nearly impossible to do so if we were restricted the relatively meager firepower that the judges, politicians, and beauracrats see fit to allow us. No, you fight force with force, and to do so, you need the proper tools, e.g. heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, man-portable anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns and missile launchers, recoilless rifles, and mortars.

 

[barnbwt]

Yet that didn't keep this piece of scum from Midnight Riding an attachment to the F.O.P.A.

Ah, New Jersey. Now it makes sense. Nothing good political comes from there .

Don't surrender a single round of magazine capacity.

Don't surrender a single round of rate-of-fire.

Don't surrender a single material (plastics/plymenrs) used in the manufacture or construction of firearms.

Don't surrender a single cosmetic feature of those evil "assault weapons."

Well, too late for those... Oh, and you forgot the most important item:
Don't submit to a single database registration--that's how they'll get ya

It'd be nearly impossible to do so if we were restricted the relatively meager firepower that the judges, politicians, and beauracrats see fit to allow us.

Huh. They guys who'd be "resisted against" don't want their subjects to have the means to do so? You're kidding, right?

TCB

 

[yokel]

Feelings of powerlessness and isolation lead to cynicism, which further subjects us to the very forces that control our lives. We begin to accept our enslavement as just the way things are and there’s nothing a person can do about it. By adopting an attitude that “this is just the way things are and can’t be changed,” we further enslave ourselves. And we fail to take action to change the system.